OK so I’m behind the times with these integrated flash cameras for any one with a minimum of technical ability to take flash shots of the Milk Way etc.
I have a digital camera which is for use by the technically challenged but use it for a few specific purposes which it does fine, quick, and easy.
I prefer a camera with which I can completely control of all of the variables.
Most camera users haven’t begun to exhaust the capabilities of what the have. Why ask for more and pay more thnt you will seldom have need for?
The experienced photographer selects the camera, film, lights, etc. for the job to be undertaken.
As the farmer said as he kissed the cow, every man to his own taste.
As covered in a number of the posts, all the technical problems are resolved. It’s just that people don’t see a need to use the solutions.
High speed film is quite good and digital cameras have very good low level response, but most people prefer bright, contrasty photos.
Most digital cameras have “silent” shutters if you turn the sound off. Many people like the sound because it tells them the photo has been taken. For film cameras, the Leica (and other) rangefinder cameras have almost silent shutters.
OK so I’m behind the times with these integrated flash cameras for any one with a minimum of technical ability to take flash shots of the Milk Way etc.
I have a digital camera which is for use by the technically challenged but use it for a few specific purposes which it does fine, quick, and easy.
I prefer a camera with which I can completely control of all of the variables.
Most camera users haven’t begun to exhaust the capabilities of what the have. Why ask for more and pay for more than you will seldom have need for?
The experienced photographer selects the camera, film, lights, etc. for the job to be undertaken.
As the farmer said as he kissed the cow, every man to his own taste.
So… if I’m talking to a wedding photographer who claims that one can not get good photos (and by ‘good,’ said photographer says its not just a matter of the photo not being bright, but it just won’t be a passable photo at all) during a wedding without a flash (and keep in mind, most churches have brighter indoor lighting than your average indoor scenario), then I can tell said photographer “bullshit, KenGr says you can,” right?
Peace.
“It was in 2003 that church photographers were first held up to the ‘KenGr’ bullshit rule.”
Be reasonable. Of course you can get a passable photo at a wedding without flash. Will it be one that you will pay a photographer big bucks for and put an 11 x 14 on the mantle? Probably not. To a professional photographer, the only measure of good is whether it will sell or not - don’t kid yourself. Most professional photographers I know (and I know a lot of them) really don’t want to take photo’s during the ceremony at all. They would much rather take them in a re-creation afterwards and not annoy everyone and have to deal with the logistics of photography in the midst of the ceremony.
A common practice is to take photo’s only of the processions in and out and doing the altar photo’s later.
Even high-speed films have quantum efficiencies of 5% or so. That means only 1 out of 20 photons striking the film is detected (causes chemical reaction), and the rest are wasted.
There is a “fix” to this problem: the CCD. They can be made with 80% or better quantum efficiency. But there are two ways to take advantage of the 40x high efficiency: you can keep the detector/film size constant and have a camera with 40x higher light sensitivity, or you can reduce the detector area to 1/40 and maintain the same sensitivity. The latter approach is far more attractive to camera manufacturers and most consumers. A smaller detector means not only a more compact camera, but also a huge reduction in cost. CCD chips are semiconductors, and a 35mm-film sized CCD would be 7 times the size of an Athlon XP CPU core.
Even for professional photographers, low light sensitivity is usually not the highest priority. Resolution, dynamic range and other factors may be compromised if you optimize for low light sensitivity. Astronomical detectors are optimized for low light sensitivity but they’re not something you can use at a wedding; they are cryogenically cooled and often have very slow readout (take one shot, wait several minutes for readout).
As I said, wedding photographers do not own cameras optimized for low light sensitivity.
In addition, flash is not just a device for compensating for insufficient light. It’s a device for controlling light. That’s why photographers usually use multiple flashes placed strategically around the subject. Indoor lighting is uneven and spread out. Imagine how boring a Broadway musical would be if they were lit by an array of overhead fluorescent lights on the ceiling.
That’s only for 35mm. The highest megapixel cameras today only match the resolution (not quality and certainly not control) of 35mm. They do not match medium format and certainly not large format. Try to blow up a digital photo to poster size, then blow up a 6cm wide negative to poster size. You’ll see the difference very quickly. If you blow up the maximum resolution the newest 14 megapixel camera provides to poster size you will see pixelation. And that’s not taking cropping and zooming into consideration. You are most likely going to want to crop and only print a certain portion of the photo, especially if you are printing a poster. I don’t remember where I saw it but to reach the resolution of medium format they will have to get around 24megapixel. If they want to crop, then it’ll have to be higher. It’s going to be a very long time before they reach the resolution of large format. The smallest NEGATIVE for large format is about the size of a standard 35mm and digital PRINT. Imagine how much you can crop and zoom that and how much you can blow it up before it gets grainy, or pixelated if it’s digital.
If you download Kodak’s TIF or RAWs you can see for yourself. Sure it looks good and you have to zoom in quite a bit before you see pixelation, but it doesn’t compare to medium sized film. A grain of silver is smaller than a pixel.*
I think digital MIGHT eventually outdo film though. Even though a grain of silver is smaller than a pixel (depending on the print size) a photon is smaller than a grain of silver. If the cameras can pick up photons better than film, then digital will give film a run for its money. But it’s going to take a very long time. Also film photographers have an enormous amount of control that digital just doesn’t provide yet. That’s a big part of the reason they choose film, not the resolution.
*I know I know. A pixel doesn’t have a real size, but it does when you print. Digital phtography is limited by pixels. Film photography is limited by grain size.
The Pro 14n is not their best camera. They also make 16-megapixel medium format digital backs. There are also 22-megapixel backs like the Sinar 22 (<- PDF file). I think the prices are in the “gee, think how many new cars I can buy for that price” range, but I’m fairly confident that 20-megapixel “consumer” (pro-sumer) cameras will be available by the end of the decade.
By the way, there isn’t much point in comparing grain size to pixel size. Each silver halide crystal is either exposed or it isn’t, so it’s either black or white. You need many crystals to represent a shade of gray, and even more to represent color. A set of 3 or 4 digital pixels can describe a color with more accuracy and dynamic range than a thousand silver halide crystals.
The quality depends on the end use of a photo. There’s no point in making the highest quality photograph if it’s going in a newspaper, for instance. If you’re printing a glossy magazine, Magazine Publisher.com gives a resolution of 300 pixels per inch based on the standard lines per inch used in printing (or 170 for a newpaper). For a full 12" by 10" page, that corresponds to 10.8 megapixels. Of course, you will need more pixels to crop or zoom the image.
Maybe it is, but as a photographer who believes in the photojournalistic approach to wedding photography, it’s kind of cheating.
There is no great logistic hassle with taking photos during the ceremony. You stand off to the side, make sure you get the ring exchange and kiss pictures and you’re done. Most churches allow flash, but if you run into one that doesn’t, use 800 or 800 pushed to 1600.
Anyway, back to the OP.
First off, there are digital cameras that don’t make a sound. Most of the pocket digicams you buy don’t make the least bit of noise during an exposure. At least my three-year old Canon Digital Elph is like this.
Second, flash. There will never be a time where flash is absolutely unnecessary in certain photo situations. Why? Because no matter how good your film is, you cannot create light where there is none. It’s not a matter of grainess or anything like that. Flash gives you light and light gives you contrast and definition. Low lighting is usually very low contrast. With very little contrast, you have very little definition. All your tones blend into each other.
Let me further explain.
Stage lighting is generally very high in contrast and low in intensity. I might be shooting something like 3200 film at 1/60-1/250 second. The pictures will be a little grainy, but absolutely fine because I have a high-contrast, direct light source. These pictures will look much better than anything flashed.
Now, let’s say I’m in a dimly lit bar. I may also be shooting 3200 film at 1/60-1/250. And I will get perfectly exposed pictures that will look like crap because of the low contrast (unless the lights are in the right places.) No matter how good your technology is, as I said before, you can’t create light where there isn’t any.
The question of when will digital surpass film is one that goes considerably beyond film grain size and pixel size. I did some research a while back and came up with several reputable sources that suggest that the 11+ megapixel cameras actually already exceed 35mm in capability and the 5+ mp cameras are only a touch behind. They also conclude (by looking at noise, grain edge effects, etc.) that it only takes about 16 mp to equal medium format. This brings up the potential (considering the superior optical quality of the best 35mm lenses) of a 16 to 20 mp 35mm based camera which could replace a medium format system.
The question of when will digital surpass film is one that goes considerably beyond film grain size and pixel size. I did some research a while back and came up with several reputable sources that suggest that the 11+ megapixel cameras actually already exceed 35mm in capability and the 5+ mp cameras are only a touch behind. They also conclude (by looking at noise, grain edge effects, etc.) that it only takes about 16 mp to equal medium format. This brings up the potential (considering the superior optical quality of the best 35mm lenses) of a 16 to 20 mp 35mm based camera which could replace a medium format system.